A Brief History Of Richard III - Richard III Of England

[@BriefHistoryOfficial]

If you are looking for more information specifically related to Richard's usurpation, check out my video on Edward V (link in the description) as I discuss the usurpation in much more detail there. As always, thank you for your interest in the channel, and I hope I can continue to create relevant and interesting videos. Cheers!

[@nelliethursday1812]

Thank you I am totally fascinated by Richard III and think he has got the poopy end of the stick in history. By the way I believe that one of Suleiman the Magnificent's son had the same humpback condition as Richard

[@Moose.-vy5ye]

You need to do actual research. Your use of the word "usurptation" tells everyone that you don't know what you're talking about.

[@BriefHistoryOfficial]

Hello. Thanks for the comment. All of the sources used to formulate the video are in the video description. Given that I have already had lengthy debates in the comment section of this video with others about the exact point you have made, I will direct you towards those comment threads as a response to your reply. Cheers

[@Moose.-vy5ye]

Michael Hicks and Alison Weir are peer discredited sources. Why? Because, briefly, they work backwards from preformulated anti-Ricardian theories and try to fit evidence into their theories, instead of the other way around. They also refuse to acknowledge original parliament rolls and statutes for the same reason. Do you really want to present false narratives like they do?

[@BriefHistoryOfficial]

Like I said before, I am not here to debate this any further. The video is what it is, and although I remain unconvinced of Richard's innocence when it comes to his usurpation and involvement in his nephews disappearance, the video as a whole is not all in all negatively geared againt richard as I do discuss his bravery and the aspects of his personality that made him an efficient and powerful ruler. If you would like to actually cite the "peers" that discredit Hicks and perhaps the names of the publications in which these peers "discredit" him I would be happy to review them if I can find the time. Your general "peer discredited" blanket statement is unfortunately not enough to convince me that this is true as there are many Ricardians who are quick to say anything against anyone who dares speak out about their beloved Richard (although I do not presume to believe that you are one them of course). What I will say is that if you take a look at my sources again, you will notice that the specific sources you quoted are not the only sources I utilized. I did read Johnathan Ashdown-Hill in order to get a Ricardian perspective, but again I remain unconvinced of Richard's innocence. Lastly I would like to notate one of the other sources I utilized by the historian Rosemary Horrox, which was published as recently as 2020. Far from discrediting or even simply ignoring Hicks, this source actually suggests Hicks writings on the subject in the further reading section. Her book states the following: "The fullest biography of Richard III is now that of Michael Hicks, Richard III: The Self-Made King (New Haven, CT, and London: Yale University Press, 2019), which largely supersedes the earlier volume about him in the same English Monarchs series by Charles Ross, Richard III (London: Eyre Methuen, 1981). Professor Hicks is also the author of two shorter works on the king: Richard III: The Man Behind the Myth (London: Collins & Brown, 1991) and Richard III (Stroud: Tempus, 2000)." Again, feel free to cite those who discredit Hicks. I hope not all of them have Ricardian biases. As far as Weir goes, I care less, as this was not used as one of the main sources but rather as a supplemental source. So in conclusion, I don't accept Hicks as discredited, I utilized more sources than you are mentioning (and have read Ricardian authors) and stand by what was presented in the video (which I don't consider definitively anti Richard) As I said before, I'm not going to get into the weeds about this. I'm more responding for anyone else who reads this thread in the future who may be concerned about source validity. Again feel free to cite from where you are basing your comments. People can feel free to google them and decide for themselves. Thanks again and cheers to you.

[@luciferhk2624]

The final warrior and medieval King of England!

[@AightBedwasten]

Henry VII was also a warrior

[@AthenaisC]

Fun fact: the current Duke of Gloucester is a Richard. He's Patron of the Richard III society that was associated with the discovery of Richard III' body under the car park. 😮

[@lefantomer]

And we need him to get us into that urn in Westminster Abbey so they can finally stop whining about the "murders of the princes in the Tower". The kids were disguised, assigned bodyguards, and taken out the door. This is not rocket science and the legend of the "murders" should never have persisted this long.

[@niktorrente6640]

It is said that when Richard was unhorsed in the battle of Bosworth Field,and supposedly,after being compelled to retreat cried " God forbid that i retreat one step,I will either win the battle as a king,or die as one" .

[@niktorrente6640]

@Clappy yeah,i think the same. It is evident that the whole Tudor dynasty is a bunch of greedy,paranoid and demented individuals,except maybe queen Elisabeth. Building such propaganda against a rival and defeated king,really looks like something that Henry would do.

[@Hypnobunny1]

Nor me. We get the nasty hunchback image of him from Shakespeare who was in the pocket of Queen Elizabeth 1st A Tudor so in his best interest to please her. Only my opinion

[@niktorrente6640]

@UCC4ID5FMXBFR03wOZLoxeWA agreed. King Richard did have a physical disorder,and it was not the cartoon looking garbage that Shakespeare presented,he had scholiosis. He was a great warrior,which he couldn’t ever be if he had been hunchback.

[@savagedarksider5934]

@@niktorrente6640 He stolen the Throne from Edward V; so he got what he deserved.

[@savagedarksider5934]

@Son of Wessex He stole the 👑 from the rightful heir: Edward V.

[@TheBlackPrince447]

Great video. King Richard was unlucky in the fact that his arch enemies wrote his legacy.

[@di3486]

Well if you murder kids, you can’t complain about what is written about you.

[@lefantomer]

And "historians" who should know better are still parroting their lies. But it is getting better. The new book detailing the discoveries of Philippa Langley's team, Annette Carson's latest edition of "The Maligned King" and continuing research are finally discovering real history, not the inventions of Morton, the second-hand gossip of More, or Shakespeare's drama rehashing the only information to which he had access.

[@sandragrundy1516]

I'm a Richard iii fan. A man of his times, a brave warrior brutally betrayed in battle. Tudors did not gain victory honourably that day. Tudors least deserving of all houses to reign.

[@crabsy6452]

I literally shivered out of happiness and shouted YAY when I saw the noti

[@MarilynRB]

Haha! @CRABSY6 same here! I absolutely adore this channel. His videos are incredibly insightful. Just when I thought I knew just about it all on subjects he posts about, I am surprised how much I don’t know. Wouldn’t it be fun to pick a topic and do a live stream sometime?

[@jamespercy6753]

Nice channel banner

[@jaobyeden4143]

A great man, died fighting manfully in the thick of it.

[@PiousFem6]

I'm very late but manfully is such a funny way to describe this lol. True though what a both incredible and terrible guy

[@lefantomer]

Richard was determined that Henry of Richmond would not get his mitts on the kingdom. He knew what Henry was; Buckingham's even hinting at him being the possible choice appears to have been what made Richard accept the crown. He chose to ride against Henry in battle and was cut down because of treason by Stanley and others who counted on Henry to see they would benefit. The claim that Richard was a "usurper" has been disproved and it is absurd that anyone is still peddling it.

[@samneilly4]

This is such a well made, entertaining series

[@MarilynRB]

I am proud to announce I’m finally a Patreon of @Brief History! That’s right; I’m officially a “Baroness”! If you see this comment, please consider supporting this channel there. Even $1 a month is enough to show your thanks, as I hope this channel grows beyond measure. A Brief History, THANK YOU for this amazing channel and content; I’m absolutely hooked on you and Dr, David Starkey, who just launched a channel called “David Starkey Talks”. It’s a great time here on KZbin listening to mesmerizing content on my favorite historical time periods and the English monarchy. Again, thank you, thank you, thank you, and keep them coming!

[@matthewxx99]

This video totally changed how i view Richard iii. Definitely one of my favourite kings now

[@chandos2008]

Welcome among Ricardians. He definitely would have been a fantastic king if someone would have been loyal to him. He was the king of the common man and of course nobles were dissatisfied with that. He wanted a reign of peace and justice and this brought him to his demise but not as a coward but as a brave, valiant warrior.

[@sc6658]

I got so EXCITED when I saw this notification pop up as I was queuing up videos to listen to. Richard III is probably my favorite English monarch for a variety of reasons and definitely one of my favorites to learn about and your content has been so high quality. I’ve been actively excited about this video practically since finding your channel and you did an amazing job. Keep up the good work!

[@MarilynRB]

@S C It is so thrilling for me to engage with people who like similar topics; I am also captivated by Richard III, like you are. With that it mind, here is my favorite question to ask folks: Do you think Richard killed the Princes in the tower? If not, do you think perhaps Margaret Beaufort had them killed? I didn’t know until recently about the bones found under the staircase in the tower until a few days ago; I wish the government and/or Queen Elizabeth would allow those bones to be tested to see if it’s really was Edward and Richard. If anything, it could confirm that both of them were indeed in the tower together and put aside any of the Philipa Gregory talk about a swap of Richard if it can be proven the remains are that of siblings.

[@sc6658]

@@MarilynRB I don’t think Richard had them killed but I’m a bit torn about their fate. For example, I’ve heard theories floated that Edward died of some disease but Richard was hidden somewhere in the countryside which could explain why there were possible pretenders who took his name and not that of his brother. Maybe one of them even was Richard of Shrewsbury? Another interesting theory I’ve seen (and is somewhat in line with Elizabeth Woodville’s behavior in my opinion, if this was the case and she knew) is that both were hidden in rural English towns for their safety. It also can’t be ruled out that their deaths could have been the doing of Henry VII, who wasn’t exactly a pleasant figure himself. He didn’t kill Edward Earl of Warwick until he attempted escape, sure, but George Duke of Clarence’s line had been disinherited by then and the potential legitimacy of Edward IV’s sons was a much greater threat to him, especially as someone descending from an illegitimate line, legitimized or not. I see all of these as possibilities personally and I may be biased against Richard’s guilt a bit but honestly considering all the facts about him that we know were twisted or worse and lack of conclusive evidence plus his being followed on the throne by the descendent of a bastard of John of Gaunt? It smells like an effective propaganda campaign to me quite honestly.

[@Hypnobunny1]

Same here he is my favourite king of England what gets me tho is why was he not buried in York minster it would be more fitting it’s such a beautiful place

[@di3486]

@@sc6658oh he definitely did it.

[@lolapayneinthebun8106]

I was just thinking about you today. I found this channel about a month ago and instantly subbed after the first video. I watched them all in order. Your research is professionally done and accurate. I really love your channel.

[@undertakerlargestfan]

When you realize that all three of the king Richards of England experienced very horrific/agonizing deaths

[@crabsy6452]

No wonder there haven’t been any royal children named Richard since

[@Chris_Quintrell]

The name must be a curse

[@aliceingoryland]

John and Richard seem to be unlucky for English monarchy

[@geoffreyrose5255]

@@Chris_Quintrell The name Charles ain't so lucky either.

[@PaddyMac]

@@crabsy6452Not one that is very close to the throne, but there is a current living Prince Richard and he too is Duke of Gloucester.

[@aarondemiri486]

certainly demonised by biased historians glad to see he is being shown as he was in life excellent video as ever can't wait to see the tudors!

[@lefantomer]

Better than usual but with quite a way to go. If one young king tried to bring some consideration for the welfare of his subjects to England he at least deserves the respect of not being turned into a monster by those responsible for his death.

[@historycentral8543]

Fun fact: When Richard was compelled to retreat by his comrades he allegedly said “God forbid I step backwards in retreat I will either win the battle as a king or die in battle as a king” PS love your videos man very underrated channel and your going places keep grinding 😃

[@RAK37]

It seems that he was a victim of propaganda and was expertly positioned to take the brunt of others' self-serving actions. If you view this passage objectively using all the available resources, it appears that not only did he not have aspirations for kingship but, history as shown us (as he possibly knew) he had nothing to gain.

[@lefantomer]

That's essentially what he said in response to first being offered the crown: that it was a lousy job because you were constantly fighting off people trying to kill you and take power. But he feared they would choose Henry of Richmond who not only was a skunk but would probably have had Richard murdered and his family would suffer. They were already mortal enemies.

[@mangot589]

Yay. And I finally understand how the claims worked, with your very clear diagram. I read about British history all the time, but what with the titles😩 I still get a bit confused. Now, finally, I get it. Thank you!

[@johnny196775]

It seems to me your scripts are more and more judiciously worded all the time. Bravo.

[@BigMamaDaveX]

🙏 Thanks for sharing this with us -- loving this series! 💌💕

[@5th_progenator_reesecobar758]

Been waiting for this one! Thanks for another great upload!

[@mbgal7758]

Thank you so much for another excellent video. I can only imagine the time you take researching these subjects to have such comprehensive information.

[@nathansavage7386]

Another excellent video, sir, I always found Richard III a fascinating King.

[@English_Dawn]

Thank you so much for your interesting videos. We owe so much to the contemporary or near contemporary writers for our view of history. Two in particular, both Italian, Mancini and Polydore Vergil. As mentioned in the videos Lady Margaret Beaufort, the mother of Henry VII was key. The Lancastrians were exceptionally pious and left many examples of foundations. The Church was one of few ways that if you were not born of noble birth that if you had ability you could rise through the ranks. The Church was pluralistic and many prelates also became government officials, particularly lawyers. One such priest was Christopher Urswick, born a Lancastrian and even gets a scene in a Shakespeare play. Urswick came to the notice of Lady Margaret Beaufort, one of the most astute political players England ever had and was an energetic go-between between her and her son in exile. She was in a Yorkist regime pre-Bosworth, so danger was at her heels. Lewis Caerleon was her physician, and also that of Elizabeth the dowager queen of Edward IV, now in sanctuary in Westminster Abbey. He was the conduit between the two. Another great Churchman of the time was John Morton who was Bishop of Ely. He was also a lawyer and staunch Lancastrian. He was instrumental in the Readeption, the restoration of Henry VI. Edward IV however valued him and reached out the hand of friendship. Morton was at the Yorkist Court and indeed Shakespeare notes this and has him sending out for strawberries to Ely Place, his London home which was famous for them, during the council meeting at the time Hastings was executed. John Morton under the Ricardian coup left for exile to the Netherlands. It was whilst in the Netherlands that he heard of the plot by Richard to arrest Henry Tudor in Brittany. The Duke of Brittany was ill but his treasurer agreed to extradite Henry Tudor. Morton got Urswick to come to the Netherlands then returned and Henry escaped with an hour to spare. Lady Margaret, not one to leave anything to chance, after Henry Tudor became king had Urswick meet Polydore Vergil to get the whole history noted down and published. In fact later Polydore Vergil became part of her court. If the chroniclers have a Lancastrian prism it is largely down to her Ladyship. A thoroughly modern and remarkable woman. A political player second to none. Urswick gave Vergil chapter and verse, including the role of Lewis Caerleon. Morton was never very far away from Lancastrian government circles and returned to Court, became the Archbishop of Canterbury, a Cardinal and Lord Chancellor. He is buried today in Canterbury Cathedral. Of Ely Place where Fleet Street meets Cheapside, St. Etheldreda's Church survives. St. Etheldreda was an East Anglian Saxon Saint after whom Ely Cathedral is named. Lady Margaret's third husband, Sir Thomas Stanley hit the jackpot and the Stanley family were catapulted into the "A League" in which they still are as Earls of Derby and were to play a major role later in politics, the Church, including the Bishopric of Ely and latterly sport. Stanley was injured in the Hastings arrest but had survived. The video is correct in saying Richard III was the last king to die in battle. Sadly he was not the last king to die violently. At this time of year we remember his grace Charles I who was executed by jumped-up little politicians in a later civil war. It was the one brief dalliance with republicanism which proved the country is a monarchy in it's DNA. Much obliged. Carolus Rex.

[@honestyandtruth6847]

As you say there is no evidence that Richard iii had any thing to do with the deaths of Henry VI, Edward Westminster or his brother Duke of Clarence (there is a Croyland Chronicle that states Richard so saddened went 'up north' after his brother's death). Some say that Richard abducted Anne Neville and married her - there is no proof of this and they seem to have been a happy couple. As we all know, Edward iv had a dubious past - I believe he was legitimate but I believe he was a bigamist. An excellent book by John Ashdown-Hill explains the theory, 'Eleanor the secret Queen, the woman who put Richard III on the throne'. If Richard III was a child killer he was inept - he missed one - his last Yorkist nephew Edward Plantagenet - but of course Henry VII executed Edward in 1499 with Warbeck to extinguish the line.

[@lefantomer]

That is one of Ashdown-Hill's most fascinating and informative works. It is just silly at this point that Stillington -- and Richard -- are accused of inventing the bigamy. And Edward could have prevented the bastardization of his children had he gotten a promise of secrecy from Eleanor and married Elizabeth openly in church. Richard takes the blame for the foolish or dishonest actions of so many others.

[@Hypnobunny1]

Fantastic video thank you for uploading coming from York i am sympathetic to Richard 3 rd

[@Chris_Quintrell]

Richard the lion heart: shot by arrow Richard II: imprisoned and killed Richard III: killed in battle There’s a reason we haven’t got a Richard IV the name’s a curse

[@METALFREAK03]

No John or Stephen neither.

[@METALFREAK03]

But Edward has been again and this is weird as two of the Edward's (at least) died because they were sickly or too weak.

[@Chris_Quintrell]

@@METALFREAK03 True but there were also Edwards like Edward I and Edward III who were atleast in England thought of as some of the best kings of England

[@Chris_Quintrell]

@@METALFREAK03John needs no explanation and the name Stephen just does Scream King or Royal

[@blackcat2628zd]

I watched only 23 minutes so far and....There was never anything like red Lancastrian rose. It was H7 PR team who invented it so they can introduce so called Tudor rose - combining the red and white roses. Yorkists on the other hand were using roses, usually white but Edward IV used a golden rose sometimes. Warwick wasn´t killed in the battle, he was killed escaping it. Richard was leading the vanguard already at Barnet. George was executed for treason, Richard couldn´t do anything about it (he and his sisters were pleading with Edward to take his brother back after that adventure with Warwick). And yes most likely it was Elizabeth W. behind George´s execution. Clarence knew about the pre contract, he was unstable and ambitious thus dangerous. Yet Edward later regretted his punishement. Richard was totally devastated by his brother´s death. George was his closest sibling, they spent most of their childhood together.

[@lefantomer]

Thank you! Your information is better than that in the video, which is at least better than most of the coverage still accusing Richard of what are turning out to be non-existent crimes. Current research is looking very hopeful indeed!

[@sheilahorn8913]

This one of my favorite history channels! Thank you for all of the research. I find I learn more in the small amount of time of these videos.

[@BriefHistoryOfficial]

Thank you for the compliment, Sheila! Cheers!

[@sandriagutierrez2605]

I’m not a big subscriber to many channels I watch, but yours prompted me to “smash that subscribe button.” Excellent content. Just history, pure and simple! You do nice work! Thank you

[@BriefHistoryOfficial]

Thanks Sandria! I hope I can continue to make interesting content. Cheers!

[@ayefuh]

thank you so so so much for your explanation of the how the throne was passed between lancasterians/yorks. i was confused for the longest time. the clarity and research of this channel is fantastic!! keep it up!!

[@jennifero7189]

Very well done! I always look forward to your post

[@alienor1322]

I came across king Richard’s III story and I find him fascinating.He grew up with wealth and power,yet he stayed very disciplined and down to earth,not to mention his bravery on the battlefield.

[@SavageDarksider-sw7rp]

He got what he deserved, so I have nothing but hatred for him after he stole the throne.

[@alienor1322]

@@SavageDarksider-sw7rp well,he had the best death a warrior could dream of

[@GaryYork-tk2ow]

I've always admired Richard Plantagenet and his son Edward. Both strong men and good soldiers.

[@MarilynRB]

Yes, yes! I cannot wait to listen to this whole thing!

[@BaneofBots]

Another great video. Loving this series mate, now it’s time to cover the tudors.

[@wvmountaingirl1976]

Yes!!!

[@jaobyeden4143]

Screw them tutors. White rose gang

[@bunneybeast]

Hallelujah. Been waiting for this video 😁🙌

[@Capybaraism]

The opening music is fire. 🔥

[@adriaank75]

Love your videos! Could you do a video about Edward the Black Prince? I'm so fascinated by this guy that I started collecting gold coins of this crown prince who never became king.

[@monoko1992]

It is really funny how he "could have save his brother, but didn't; but still searched revenge for his brother's death" 😬

[@paulinerodgerson2476]

Our family names are. Neville Gaunt and Percy Gaunt. You could say we're yorkists that's where we hail from. We are York. Yorkshire and proud. We wore the White Rose on our blazers. We're also from Pontefract which was another rich and another powerful proud town!

[@faolanliath6687]

Did Richard himself ever give an explanation at the time as to where the princes were or what became of them?

[@Hinata.Sakaguchi]

I think he said they were just sleeping...for good.

[@nicoleroth3127]

No, he didn't.

[@blackcat2628zd]

That would be an unwise (actually really stupid) thing to do, Richard wanted to protect them and he succeeded.

[@di3486]

He didn’t because he was guilty.

[@SamJohnson-fj4lt]

@@blackcat2628zdwas it not Richard that had them bastardized? Why would he continue to “protect “ them when they came to majority and could have been crowned king?

[@ryanbowling1654]

Excellent work..

[@nbenefiel]

Richard was a very popular king in his time. His sole Parliament was one of the most progressive in English history.

[@johnhaydu2627]

So pumped right now

[@jjenfield7444]

King Richard was incredibly brave. It is well recorded that when a horse was brought to his side to retreat, Richard said: “A Horse A Horse! My Kingdom, for a horse, treason, treason, treason!” Before charging at Henry’s men killing one of Henry’s knights of the guard.

[@patrickols]

Considering what happen to his two princes in the tower I would not use the word brave for Richard III

[@jjenfield7444]

@@patrickols Richard iii is controversial for many reasons, but even his greatest enemies admit, he fought in battle with unbelievable bravery

[@katakauchi]

He never said that, that’s just Shakespeare and Tudor Propaganda. We don’t know what if any thing he actually said ? .

[@blackcat2628zd]

The Berwick campaign was probably useless but on the positive note, no one was killed. The Woodvilles were hated mostly because they completely destroyed marriage market in England because they were so many of them. About Stony Stratford I highly recommend a brilliant article by Annette Carson (on her blog). Young Edward and Richard were accommodated in the Tower which was a busy royal palace at that time and it was a custom that the future kings were waiting there for the coronation, Richard was ambitious, yes, but aggressive? Hardly. Richard never questioned Edward´s legitimacy. Usurpation means to take (throne) by force or illegally, none of this was Richard´s case. Richard's marriage to Anne was never declared null, and it was public to everyone including secular and canon lawyers for 13 years. Buckingham was the second most powerful man after Richard. Supporting Tudor for Tudor´s sake is, ehm, nonsense. Buckingham rebellion didn´t make Richard furious, or maybe it did, but mainly Richard was hurt by this utter betrayal. Richard never plan to marry his niece. It was actually Elizabeth who had some kind of crush on Richard (check her letters). Richard planned to marry Portuguese Princess Joanna who after Richard died at Bosworth never married. Richard killing his wife...she died most likely of tuberculosis. Richard didn´t kill his nephews. it would make no sense to kill just these two and leave other 16 nieces and nephews alive (they all survived after Bosworth), He could hardly show the boys, he was protecting them. Not even H7 ever accused Richard of killing the "princes". Not because he liked Richard but because he knew that they were not dead. The story about evil uncle killing his angelic nephews most likely originated in France as a smear campaign against Richard, preparing soil for the invasion. Richard was not only brave, educated, handsome. He was also very pious and just, interested in law for everyone, not only the rich. Documents from his first and only Parliament were for the very first time in English. Unfortunately Richard wasn´t ruthless enough and it cost him his life.

[@BriefHistoryOfficial]

Hello. Thank you for the comments. The sources I used for the video are in the video description. Although I understand and respect your position, much, if not all, of what you stated can be debated. I am sure that bias will be argued with my sources, but the same can be argued for pro richard sources as well. I will just comment on one of your points, that richard did not "usurp" the throne for time purposes. I will cite two sources, "Richard III, The Self-Made King" by Michael Hicks, a medieval Historian and formal medieval professor. In his book he writes, "Richard III had made himself king. Although greatly assisted by Buckingham, Richard was his own kingmaker. He planned his own accession and carried it through. It was a usurpation, as he displaced the existing sovereign Edward V, whose right to reign as son and heir of Edward IV had been one of the certainties of the past dozen years". Another of my sources is "Richard III, A Failed King" by Rosemary Horrox, a historian and Life Fellow of Fitzwilliam College, University of Cambridge. In her book she writes " This was not immediately apparent, at least not to Richard himself, who enthusiastically took many of the household men of his brother into his service after his usurpation." I will also cite another source "The Princes In The tower" by Alison Weir. In her book she writes "The assembly that convened on 25th June was undoubtedly constitutional, even though it did not meet in Parliament, but it now went beyond the law and declared Edward IV’s marriage to Elizabeth Wydville invalid and their children illegitimate, then agreed that Edward V had been formally deposed. In fact, he and his siblings were not formally disinherited until ‘Titulus Regius’ was passed in 1484, and therefore his deposition on 25th June, 1483, was illegal." Nevertheless, I tried to not reflect Richard in a completely negative manner throughout the video as I believe he had many qualities that would be desired in a leader. Again thank you for the well thought out and articulate comments. Cheers!

[@blackcat2628zd]

@@BriefHistoryOfficial Many things on your side could be debated too. What can´t be debated because it´s well documented is that there was no Lancastrian red rose. Brilliant PR stuff from the Tudors, to combine white and red rose as a symbol of unity. Petition was presented to Richard “on behalf and in the name of the three estates of this realm of England, that is, the lords spiritual and temporal and the commons”. Because E4 children couldn´t inherit the throne (neither George´s children because of the attainder) Richard was first in the line of succession. Petition from the Representatives of the 3 estates was sufficient because only the king can convene the Parliament and England didn´t have a King. Richard accepted the crown on 26 June, 1483 and have his first (and unfortunately last) Parliament in 1484 and was confirmed as King by Titulus Regius. That´s a fact. There is no evidence for your statements which I tried to argue last time. And please, why do you think that Richard was aggressive and ruthless?

[@BriefHistoryOfficial]

Some of your criticisms I chose not to acknowledge, because they are irrelevant and nitpicking. The red rose comment is one of those comments. Regardless whether the red and white rose was used at that time matters not, as the conflicts are so well known today by so many as the wars of the roses, that omitting this from the discussion would be ridiculous. The point of what is discussed in the video is to simply point out why it's referred to as the wars of the roses today. Other comments of yours (such as warwick being killed fleeing Barnet) are just a complaint against liberties taken by me to gloss over certain points for time purposes. Your comments in regards to the three Estates of the realm and richards right to the throne need not be debated further. You are clearly convinced that Edward V was illegitimate. However others, including many historians are not. What is presented in the video was formulated directly from the sources I used. I will cite Hicks and Weir again in regards to your three Estates "fact". Hicks writes " Together they represented the estates of the realm. They were presented with Titulus Regius, an elaborate justification of Richard’s title to the crown. Chaired by Buckingham, the assembly elected Richard as king. After an appropriate show of reluctance, Richard accepted the crown, and on 6 July he was crowned. Although constitutional convention demanded that Richard was offered the crown and accepted it reluctantly, there can be little doubt that Richard himself was the prime mover" Weir writes (quoting Mancini and Vergil herself) "says Mancini, ‘consulted their own safety, warned by the example of Hastings and perceiving the alliance of the two Dukes, whose power, supported by a multitude of troops, would be difficult and hazardous to resist; and therefore they determined to declare Richard their king and ask him to undertake the burden of office’. They were ‘seduced’, states Vergil, ‘rather for fear than hope of benefit’. In regards to your question about Richards aggressiveness and ruthlessness, I think that a usurpation and almost certain execution of his nephews is enough to prove this. I know that you obviously don't believe that richard had his nephews killed, but many remained unconvinced of this. Hicks writes "Academic historians do not generally accept his (Richard's) case to become king and most attribute to him the deaths of the princes. It is not true that all Richard’s subjects favoured Richard. Careful reassessment has often resulted in academics, from Charles Ross on, confirming the old version of events. All the relevant biographers who discussed the fate of the princes in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (2004) maintained still that Richard was the guilty perpetrator". As far as richards aggressive nature I will again cite Hicks "One area where the duke did not accrue experience was diplomacy. Though warden, Gloucester was never commissioned to treat with the Scots, perhaps because he was inflexibly aggressive and his hostility set him at odds with Edward IV’s more conciliatory policy of rapprochement. Richard was almost as much of a handful as his brother George........Gloucester, on previous evidence, probably favoured war and was anyway quite undiplomatic.’, Hicks goes to write "As will be demonstrated, Duke Richard was proud and ambitious, desirous of wealth and power and responsibility", "Gloucester’s standing and authority fell well short of a regional hegemony. Characteristically the duke declined to take ‘no’ for an answer - to acquiesce to the restrictions that Edward had in mind. Gloucester laboured to extend his possessions, his affinity, and his power nevertheless. That he came ultimately to dominate the whole region was largely because of his own vigorous initiatives. He exploited the king’s favour" Lastly Hicks writes "Gloucester moved aggressively beyond his own territory into areas that the earl of Northumberland regarded as his preserve. Apparently he sought from the king and other lords the transfer of offices held by the earl. Furthermore he interrupted the earl and his servants in the execution of these offices and he drew into his service" I have done my best to respond to you in a respectful manner and have cited some of the sources for the information I used, something you have failed to do throughout your comments. Due to this, and the potential for endless debate on this contentious topic, I will not be continuing discussion here. Thank you.

[@blackcat2628zd]

@@BriefHistoryOfficial OK. But I am ready to discuss this anytime though ;-), including my sources.

[@savagedarksider5934]

@@blackcat2628zd I don't care what anyone says Edward V was the rightful heir and should have had A long reign.

[@mrmu7ammed1]

Good episode

[@paulabraham2550]

Minor point at 9:10. Clarence would have been heir presumptive, not heir apparent.

[@BriefHistoryOfficial]

Hello. Thank you for the comment. One of the main sources I used in formulating this video was "Richard III, The Self-Made King" by Michael Hicks, a medieval Historian and former medieval professor. In his book he refers to George Duke Of Clarence multiple times as "Heir Apparent". Here is a quote of the text "It was George of course who was the elder, indeed heir apparent until 1466, and who was to be preferentially treated until at least 1468". He goes on to write later "apparently to discredit her granddaughters, the king’s only children, and to restore Clarence as heir apparent". He does use "heir presumptive" throughout the book referring to other heirs of different situations not relating the the English crown. I briefly looked at another of his books "The Family Of Richard III", and he also refers to George as "Heir Apparent" in this book as well. However, one of the other sources I utilized "the princes in the tower" by Alison Weir states George as "Heir Presumptive" while other sources I used simply state "heir" with no designation. Based on the definition, obviously I am willing to concede that this is an error on my part, but I find Hick's consistent usage of "Heir Apparent" throughout his writings as interesting. Thanks for pointing this out. Cheers!

[@dozergetscrafty]

Video: a brief look Also video: 49 min 😂 Not that.im complaining. This chammel is fast becoming one of my favorites.

[@sdl1ishappy]

I have always thought Richard's wife, Anne, probably hated the Woodvilles due to her father's falling out with Edward over their power. I'm sure she encouraged Richard to act on the information that the princes were illegitimate, as she probably was also inclined to believe the worst of Edward. I also think Young Edward V ran his mouth off to his hot-tempered and powerful Uncle who had dirt on the Woodvilles and maybe even his own brother. If Richard learned that the Woodvilles were plotting against him, he would strike and strike hard. And that he did.

[@jamierobinson1507]

Another great video thank you

[@WrkBassShredder]

King 👑 Richard lll

[@njorogefred150]

Little Finger: "Knowledge is Power" Cersei Lannister: "Power is Power!" 😅

[@mikev4621]

Superb docco

[@pjschroder8533]

Very well done. Thank you. Just one comment, there is no such word as ‘anyways’, the word is ‘ANYWAY’. You are too bright fior this slight blunder.

[@briankeenan776]

Thanks!

[@BriefHistoryOfficial]

Thanks Brian!

[@alleynealisleem9777]

What music is. This?

[@jam1087]

Going along with the Key Concepts (which is a great feature) as soon as the picture for Richard Woodville came up I immediately made me think of Charles the Bold and then what do you know there he is too. But of course they are related, they are are

[@kelliecostello5594]

Good job 👍

[@judymac2590]

I thought Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitane had a double coronation, making THEM first??

[@Pinklady7529]

How can I support your channel on Patreon?😊

[@williamberven-ph5ig]

Yes, Richard had been loyal to his brother the King except for that little MURDERING HIS CHILDREN thing. Wake-up Richard 3rd society, killing children rather negates any "other than that" rationalization. Who are you people?

[@kenandrews4634]

Where's your proof?

[@ray101892]

There's no King John II or Henry IX after their predecessors ruined those names. I wonder why Richard continued to be used after the disastrous reign of Richard II. Edward IV's son could easily have been Richard III if Edward V passed away

[@mikev4621]

Probably because R1's reputation was pretty good

[@pedanticradiator1491]

But the names John and Henry have been used for Princes its just that none of them have become king

[@METALFREAK03]

@@pedanticradiator1491 Usually though these are later siblings, and due to the inheritence being now first born (whichever sex), it's highly unlikely they would ever become crowned.

[@savagedarksider5934]

Great job with the video. I'm adamant Richard killed the princes.

[@waterlily345]

Fascinating stories by the narrator, but I wish he had paid more attention to his English as he uses the wrong tense several times during his discourse.

[@mjarmes]

He was a sick despicable man who stopped at nothing in his thirst of power, including killing his two innocent nephews that stood in his way to the throne. He did have people killed and I disagree with your depiction of him being blamed as a scapegoat, most people believe him to have ordered the Princes in the Tower to be killed and many others, if you don't agree, I'd recommend doing more research and presenting your own opinion to support your claims.

[@BriefHistoryOfficial]

Hello Thanks for the comment. Did you watch the entire video? All the sources used to formulate the video are in the video description. I'm having difficulty seeing where I reflected Richard as a scapegoat in the video? Can you list some timestamps where I do that? I discuss the belief that some hold the position that he is innocent, but I also discuss the belief that he is guilty, and in fact hold that position myself. I refer to Richard regularly throughout the video as an usurper, and at 35:33, 48:05 & 48:20 I discuss his role in his nephews disappearance and the widespread belief that he is the guilty party. Thanks again and Cheers.

[@MrTM-fg6zn]

The car park king 👑

[@PEDRO-ld4gp]

*The car park warrior king

[@AightBedwasten]

​@@PEDRO-ld4gp*The car park medieval warrior father of the tudors evil brother loving tyrant king*

[@jamest2401]

Fotheringay Castle was where Mary Stuart was executed. Was Fotheringay destroyed by Cromwell? He was the great destroyer of castles after all.

[@evyk1708]

To say Richard III is not the worst King of England.All those plays of Shakespeare are mostly a lie.

[@kenandrews4634]

Tudor propaganda. Shakespeare wrote under the last Tudor monarch.

[@stevewarner9960]

Prince of Wales in Hebrew Gemetria is 1269. We shall see:)

[@williamberven-ph5ig]

I think we have Phillipa Gregory to thank for all these ridiculous Margaret-Henry theories. I love her fiction...catch that...fiction! Henry was ruthless enough but wasn't there and even if Margaret had the means, (which she didn't) why would she risk offing the kings nephews? Henry's barrier to becoming king was Richard, not Edward. Elizabeth had her own spy network and loyal supporters. If there had been any scuttlebutt implicating Margaret or Henry do you really think she would have schemed with Margaret to marry her daughter to her son?

[@DragonDreamt]

Brief History, quiet honestly this summary sounds a little biased. It sounds like you are setting Richard III up as more of the Shakespeare's character we have all heard about. I am not a Richard fan, I am not but I love to hear both sides, if not all sides to the story.

[@williamberven-ph5ig]

It's history not a political argument. Facts are just that, facts and they all point to Richard.

[@dmnemaine]

Just as an f.y.i., the name "Beaufort" is pronounced "Byoo-fort", not "Bow-fort".

[@victorydaydeepstate]

Did Richard III speak French?

[@AightBedwasten]

I think not but he did speak middle english which was French's closest brother

[@mrfearsmom8857]

Isn't this the same Richard England found his remains in a random street?

[@user-cc6nb5th6x]

Under a car park.

[@Anwesha1461]

50 percent correct 50 percent incorrect 😢😢

[@Moose.-vy5ye]

You have a lot of errors in this video. Perhaps because you used Michael Hicks and Alison Weir- two writers who are known to skew evidence to fit with their biased theories. Hicks, in particular, is well known for doing this.

[@user-xr7sv5oe4c]

It's hictic😮

[@kimpercy4165]

I'm enjoying these videos though I'm getting a bit sick of the wars of the Rose's, I cant wait for the tudors!

[@brendancronin3796]

His name is used in rhyming slang...Richard the 3rd ( turd ) ...just thought I'd share that info

[@godders778]

How do you justify your opinion that Richard "usurped" the throne? Parliament asked Richard to take the throne after Edward's sons were declared bastard. What was he supposed to do? Refuse them? That would have certainly caused chaos! So Richard took the throne legitimately. May I suggest you don't use rumours or Shakespeare since that would almost certainly be Tudor propaganda. Note: Henry struggled to assert his legitimacy after Bosworth so how do you explain why he didn't charge Richard with their murders, if 'rumours were rife', until 17 (SEVENTEEN!) years later when Tyrrell supposedly confessed to their murders although there is no evidence of this written or otherwise! The only conclusion has to be he knew they weren't dead or, at the very least didn't know where they were, and couldn't take the risk of one of them turning up. Henry was a cunning devious liar but could assert that Tyrrell had confessed because Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck were now dead and Tyrrell was unlikely to refute it from the grave!

[@BriefHistoryOfficial]

Hello. My sources are in the video description. I generally do my best to keep my opinions out of the videos, so I would not call what is discussed in the video as my opinion per se. Obviously I am aware that this is a hotly contested subject, and I go into more detail into the overall disagreement in my Edward V video. As far as your inquiry into justification that richard "usurped" the throne, I will cite two sources, "Richard III, The Self-Made King" by Michael Hicks, a medieval Historian and formal medieval professor. In his book he writes, "Richard III had made himself king. Although greatly assisted by Buckingham, Richard was his own kingmaker. He planned his own accession and carried it through. It was a usurpation, as he displaced the existing sovereign Edward V, whose right to reign as son and heir of Edward IV had been one of the certainties of the past dozen years". Another of my sources is "Richard III, A Failed King" by Rosemary Horrox, a historian and Life Fellow of Fitzwilliam College, University of Cambridge. In her book she writes " This was not immediately apparent, at least not to Richard himself, who enthusiastically took many of the household men of his brother into his service after his usurpation.". As far as your comment that "parliament" offered the throne to Richard, I would argue that it was not parliament, but an unofficial assembly called the "Three Estates Of The Realm. I will cite a book called "the Mythology Of The Princes In The Tower" by Johnathan Ashdown Hill (a pro richard proponent) in his book he writes "Meanwhile, the people who had been summoned to the capital to form the first parliament of the new reign were assembled at the London Guildhall. There they constituted an unofficial parliament, referred to as the ‘three estates of the realm’. In referring to this unofficial assembly I will cite another source "The Princes In The tower" by Alison Weir. In her book she writes "The assembly that convened on 25th June was undoubtedly constitutional, even though it did not meet in Parliament, but it now went beyond the law and declared Edward IV’s marriage to Elizabeth Wydville invalid and their children illegitimate, then agreed that Edward V had been formally deposed. In fact, he and his siblings were not formally disinherited until ‘Titulus Regius’ was passed in 1484, and therefore his deposition on 25th June, 1483, was illegal.". As far as being offered the throne, it has been argued that richard and Buckinham were the drivers and that the assembly was strongarmed at this point. I will cite Hicks and Weir again. Hicks writes "Together they represented the estates of the realm. They were presented with Titulus Regius, an elaborate justification of Richard’s title to the crown. Chaired by Buckingham, the assembly elected Richard as king. After an appropriate show of reluctance, Richard accepted the crown, and on 6 July he was crowned. Although constitutional convention demanded that Richard was offered the crown and accepted it reluctantly, there can be little doubt that Richard himself was the prime mover" Weir writes (quoting Mancini and Vergil herself) "says Mancini, ‘consulted their own safety, warned by the example of Hastings and perceiving the alliance of the two Dukes, whose power, supported by a multitude of troops, would be difficult and hazardous to resist; and therefore they determined to declare Richard their king and ask him to undertake the burden of office’. They were ‘seduced’, states Vergil, ‘rather for fear than hope of benefit’. As far as henry delaying his charges against richard, we are in agreeance, in that Henry VII did not know where the princes were, or if they were alive. But Henry not knowing their fate or status certainly does not mean that they WERE alive or that richard had not killed them. I will cite Weir once again. She writes "Without the bodies he could do none of these things; instead, he was to be haunted throughout his reign by the fear that perhaps the intelligence fed to him in 1483 had been false or inaccurate, and that one or the other or both the Princes would turn up alive somewhere, or that some clever imposter would successfully impersonate one of them and wrest his crown from him". It has been argued that the story was put out to prevent any future support for imposters. Lastly, I will cite Hicks again in reference to why I chose to portray Richard in the light I did in the video, which, in my opinion, is not definitively negative throughout as it is evident that Richard had many great (even kingly) qualities. Hicks writes "Academic historians do not generally accept his (Richard's) case to become king and most attribute to him the deaths of the princes. It is not true that all Richard’s subjects favoured Richard. Careful reassessment has often resulted in academics, from Charles Ross on, confirming the old version of events. All the relevant biographers who discussed the fate of the princes in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (2004) maintained still that Richard was the guilty perpetrator". I obviously understand that you, and many others, may dispute these sources, and the contemporary sources they utilize. However, your insinuation that the video was based on "rumors and Shakespeare" is frankly, an insult, and I respectfully disagree with this assumption.

[@pk6810]

James Tyrrell allegedly confessed around 1501-1502 , Lambert Simnell was still very much alive at this point, infact he did not die until 1534.

[@wendystevenson5718]

@@BriefHistoryOfficial Thats where your problem lies... Michael Hicks writes some very biased histories, perhaps you should use a range of other historians

[@kenandrews4634]

Mancini and Vergil were both Tudor apologists. And on the other side where Richard was concerned. Neutral observers are hard to find, so Tudor accounts should be taken with more than a grain of salt.

[@christinadiaz4349]

Nah! It was well founded!

[@skiron5453]

yeehaw

[@heathergarnham9555]

Richard III he's bad, cause he fought wars with Henry VII

[@Chris_Quintrell]

First Tudor and Henry VIII’s dad

[@aimeemorgado8715]

Freshman level undergraduate writing and research at best. Pass

[@stephencarter9570]

God almighty you would think they could get the spelling right!!!!

[@DavidMacDowellBlue]

03:29 The rose badges were relatively minor emblems of the two houses at the time. Rather the conflicts were called "The Cousins Wars." The more poetic name was dreamed up by Victorian historians who put their own, often distorted, lens on everything. 04:10 This is all very badly written. Like a mediocre encyclopedia entry. The passive voice for example, used lavishly.

[@blackcat2628zd]

The Lancastrians never used a red rose, or rose of any colour. It was H7 PR team who invented it, it looked good, bringing the roses together in a white and red Tudor rose. The Yorkists were using roses, usually white but Edward IV sometimes used a golden one.

[@METALFREAK03]

@@blackcat2628zd Next your going to say we never used Lions as emblems neither.

[@blackcat2628zd]

@@METALFREAK03 I see no connections here.

[@Hinata.Sakaguchi]

I wonder what are english people thinking when war of the roses is happening🤔changing kings multiple times.i think they were like "oh sh*t here we go again"😂